‘It’s a poll tax’

ADVERTISEMENT

‘Restitution’ becomes key issue

poll tax
ROBERT DUYOS/SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL/TNS
The Florida Legislature is trying to provide guidance as to how Amendment 4, which restored voting rights to hundreds of ex-felons, is to be applied.

BY DARA KAM
NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE – Karen Leicht spent nearly three years in federal prison and three months on probation after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit insurance fraud in 2010.

According to a judge and a former probation officer, Leicht’s sentence is over.

But the Miami paralegal may never be able to vote in Florida, despite the passage of a November constitutional amendment that “automatically” restored voting rights to most felons who’ve completed the terms of their sentences.

Millions owed

Under a bill approved Monday by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, felons would have to pay all restitution before their voting rights could be automatically restored.

That would include paying in full restitution that’s been converted to a civil judgment, a provision Leicht – who was ordered to pay $59 million in restitution – told the panel would permanently disenfranchise her in Florida.

After she was released from prison and probation, the restitution obligation was converted to a civil judgment, which she continues to pay, Leicht said.

Senate Criminal Justice Chairman Keith Perry, a Gainesville Republican who supported the constitutional amendment, asked Leicht if she has registered to vote.

“No, I have not gone to register because I am saddled with $59 million of restitution, and I need to make sure that when I go and register to vote that I am not going to commit another crime because I am not going back inside,” she replied.

A ‘poll tax’

“Fifty-nine million. Really? You think I can ever pay that? I’ll never vote in this state again, at this rate. That’s like a poll tax.”

The amendment, which appeared on the November ballot as Amendment 4, granted “automatic” restoration of voting rights to felons “who have completed all terms of their sentence, including parole or probation.” The amendment excluded people “convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense.”

Fierce debate

State and local elections officials, clerks of courts, prosecutors and others have asked the Legislature for guidance in interpreting what specific crimes qualify as exceptions and what is required for felons to have completed their sentences. That has spurred a fierce debate in the Senate and House about how to carry out the amendment.

The Senate panel approved the bill on a 3-2, party-line vote after Sen. Jason Pizzo, a Miami-Dade County Democrat who is a former prosecutor, told Leicht not to worry. The self-described “cat lady” lives in Pizzo’s district, he said.

“Go register to vote,” Pizzo said, adding that “the state attorney’s office is not going to prosecute you for checking off the box” because she is not intentionally trying to register to vote illegally.

“Oh my God, I’m shaking. That’s so incredible. Thank you so much,” she said.

Leicht’s situation was the most dramatic example of dozens of people who traveled to the state Capitol to plead with lawmakers to do nothing or to dramatically scale back House and Senate bills designed to carry out the amendment. Many amendment supporters do not believe the measure requires legislative action.

Broad definitions

The House version (HB 7089) has drawn criticism, in part, because of its definition of felony sexual offenses, which includes a third-time prostitution conviction, and its treatment of felons’ financial obligations. Critics fear the definitions could prevent many people from ever getting to vote.

The Senate version, meanwhile, adds attempted murder to the disqualifying offenses. But Monday’s meeting was dominated by complaints about the restitution payment issue.

Judges’ orders?

Bill sponsor Jeff Brandes, RSt. Petersburg, relied on a video of Jon Mills, a former dean of the University of Florida law school and a one-time House Speaker, who told the Florida Supreme Court that felons could be required to pay fees, fines and restitution, if those conditions were part of judges’ sentencing orders.

Under Brandes’ proposal, felons could still be eligible for automatic voting restoration if they have unpaid fees or fines that have been converted to civil liens.

Restitution critical

Brandes, who for years has been a proponent of criminal justice reforms, said he believes that requiring full restitution repayment, despite objections from felons and the amendments’ advocates, is critical to the proposal’s success.

“I don’t think we would have gotten it through this committee, and I sure don’t think that it’s going to get through the Legislature” without that provision, Brandes said.

Perry called Amendment 4 “one of the most transformative” constitutional changes but said legislators “don’t have the prerogative to go outside” of the amendment’s language.

He said he’s asked some constitutional lawyers to give him an analysis of what the amendment requires regarding felons’ financial obligations and completion of sentences. He also reminded audience members that Monday’s meeting was the measure’s first committee stop.

ADVERTISEMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here